-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Aatu Koskensilta a écrit :
|| On Feb 16, 2005, at 12:58 PM, Joseph Vidal-Rosset wrote:
||> Jeffrey Ketland a écrit :
|>|> | (ii) The Adequacy Condition (adding truth axioms should give a proof of
|> | reflection principles, and in particular "All theorems of S are true").
|>|> Do we need at this point to grow up to the second order? I believe it.
||| Only if we want to be able to define the truth predicate explicitly.
Thanks.
But this logico-philosophical debate around deflationism about truth
tries to define truth explicitly, wondering after its substantial or
non-substantial property.
Gödel believed in truth as substantial, no doubt, but neither Tarski nor
Carnap did. The point is to see if mathematical logic can decide who is
right, and I have some doubt about the decidability of this
philosophical question. But I'm maybe wrong.
Jo.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCFJM7w/q2qaNF4IARAuo9AJ9nfF+qzY20SsF7GUcNty2scaZ0GACg7Obo
BSpQ2rYap5TeUP1/stMuj1w=
=rIsz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----